Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 199458 times)

EmberMike · « **Reply #450 on:** March 07, 2014, 14:25 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 07, 2014, 14:13

The point was that someone said they were giving away vectors and they aren't. You cannot get the vector. That's all, very simple.

No one thought you could actually get vector format files. The discussion was about the image type, pointing put that not just photos are part of this. What I didn't get is why it matters what the file format is. Images are being given away. Format is irrelevant. JPGs of vectors are equally valuable to some buyers, if not more valuable. That's why I get a lot of JPG sales, to some people that format is better for them.

tickstock · « **Reply #451 on:** March 07, 2014, 14:27 »

BD · « **Reply #452 on:** March 07, 2014, 14:33 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 07, 2014, 12:38

Quote from: Pickerell on March 07, 2014, 12:14
I asked Getty public relations a couple questions. They supplied me with the following answer that can be attributed to Getty Images.

1 – Are customers able to embed images that are on iStock and Thinkstock?

“Right now the embed feature is only for images on gettyimages.com. It is not on the company’s master delegate sites. It is not on iStock or Thinkstock. Getty Images will see how it resonates and then make decisions about iStock and Thinkstock.”

Of course the iStock images that are on gettyimages.com are available for embedding including Yuri’s image

The moment they allow embedding on my non-exclusive iStock portfolio (over 9000 images) I'll be gone from there. I will not be giving away for free images that I sell on other sites, this would be complete insanity. Whoever is in charge of decisions like that please take note.

I'll also immediately leave. I don't give my images away for free.

BD · « **Reply #453 on:** March 07, 2014, 14:39 »

What happens when the image is no longer available on Getty? Will the embedded image become an empty space?

ShadySue · « **Reply #454 on:** March 07, 2014, 14:40 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 07, 2014, 14:06

I took a look on GettyImages to get an idea of which third of their images they're allowing users to embed (35 million of about 105 million was what one article stated).

It now seems to me that being embeddable means Getty considers you the "low rent district" - if you look at the hover previews for an image you will see the </> icon at the end of the row for images that are embeddable, so you can quickly scan results to see what is.

Having noticed that things like National Geographic were excluded and Flickr included, I started with their Collections page

http://www.gettyimages.com/creativeimages/imagecollection

And saw that huge chunks of the creative stuff is not embeddable - Rubber Ball, Digital Vision, Tetra, Images Bazaar, Dorling Kindersley, Yuri Arcurs, Blend Images, Ingram,

But Vetta, E+, Flickr are embeddable. Photodisc is interesting in that only a portion are embeddable and it appears that the search (not for a term but browsing the collection) puts all the embeddable images up front - half way through page 4 the images are no longer embeddable (I only spot checked a few pages after that, so there could be something I missed)

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?p=image&family=creative&contractUrl=1&b=PDI#4

My assumption is that they're only taking a risk (offering for free) with things they don't value very much anyway...

Some of Yuri's stuff was embeddable yesterday.
Also in re earlier posts,
"What content is included?
Comp-sized creative and editorial stills files on gettyimages.com (excluding certain restricted collections such as Premium Archive, Contour and Reportage) are available for embed, as well as exclusive iStock photos and vectors on gettyimages.com." Which must include Vetta.

Does Yuri also submit to Getty outwith iStock?

stocked · « **Reply #455 on:** March 07, 2014, 14:47 »

Finally Getty discovered SEO....................

jeffclow · « **Reply #456 on:** March 07, 2014, 16:05 »

Quote from: Toopy on March 07, 2014, 11:11

Quote
Hi Petr,
We’d like to invite you to our private beta launch of 500px Prime—royalty-free licenses for premium photos.

You know 500px as a community of 37 million breathtaking photos created by over 3 million photographers in 200 countries.

Today we’re making a collection of these photos available for commercial licensing. In a world of diminishing profits for photographers our revolutionary 70% royalty plan is sure to make waves, but from a buyer’s perspective here’s what’s even more exciting:

Exclusive content – Over 75% of our collection has never been published.
Simple buying – One option covers it all. For $250 per photo you get the highest resolution and it’s always royalty-free with a worldwide, any-media usage license. No expiries or seat limits. That means unlimited print and digital impressions forever.
Audience insights – We collect billions of consumer signals each month and give you in-depth audience metrics to ensure your photo choices are the best ones for your needs.

Can’t find the perfect photo? Email your brief to [email protected] and we’ll reach out to our photographers on your behalf. Or call our researchers at 1.855.561.4584 x105 and they can handpick a custom selection for you.

Please visit http://prime.500px.com

hh good timing

Full disclosure - I'm one of the photographers in this beta test with 500px.com - and everything I've seen so far makes me think that this particular start up still is keeping the photographer's interests in mind. Paying out 70% to photographers with commercial licenses starting at $250 seems like a bold move.

Will it work? Who knows. But I know that my portfolio is moving from Getty to 500px. Sure - its only 1000 photos or so, but I'd rather sell 10 photos a year for a decent price then allow all of my work to be devalued to zero.

And if that doesn't work - well then I'll give them away for free - but then I'll get the credit and I won't help the millionaires at Carlyle become billionaires.

cobalt · « **Reply #457 on:** March 07, 2014, 16:12 »

I got that email as well today, but couldn't see how to upload files to the 250 dollar market. Just an area were files cost 2,99?

Maybe we can talk more about this in the 500px thread? I am not sure I understand their system.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #458 on:** March 07, 2014, 16:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 07, 2014, 14:40

Does Yuri also submit to Getty outwith iStock?

http://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?artist=Yuri+Arcurs&family=Creative

I really don't know all the ways Yuri got into bed with Getty

I found one image of his via a google search and then clicked on his name on Getty which produced the above. I don't see any embeddable there. Those are $20 - $609, slightly "cheaper" than Vetta which is $25-$699

Shelma1 · « **Reply #459 on:** March 07, 2014, 16:43 »

Photographer's blog post about the Getty deal (warning, foul language

):

http://paulclarke.com/photography/blog/im-a-photographer-getty-me-out-of-here/

gbalex · « **Reply #460 on:** March 07, 2014, 16:49 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 07, 2014, 12:36

Quote from: Ron on March 07, 2014, 12:29
Quote from: luissantos84 on March 07, 2014, 12:28
Quote from: tickstock on March 07, 2014, 12:22
Quote from: Ron on March 07, 2014, 12:18
Quote from: tickstock on March 07, 2014, 12:13
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/
Love it. Great response.

Seems we've all been overreacting, it's no big deal and shouldn't affect the industry at all.

guess we will need to wait a see, 35 Million free files is indeed a lot, saying that only 0.1% are non-commercial buyers seems quite low as well, he wouldn't say that this is a major concern too
True, if Jon said this would kill Shutterstock, he could start using his shares as toilet paper as well

Right. I'm pretty sure he sees Getty's plan as junk, but he's nevertheless forced to respond to it - and he'll have to answer the same questions at the next shareholders' meeting.

In the long run, the money Getty makes (or doesn't) from this may not matter. What matters is the huge perceived devaluation of stock imagery, and IMHO that's a disaster which is not recoverable.

Agreed and you can be guaranteed that they will not give Jon the passes that contributors do. The SSTK is already receiving sell ratings.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #461 on:** March 07, 2014, 16:57 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 07, 2014, 16:43

Photographer's blog post about the Getty deal (warning, foul language ):

http://paulclarke.com/photography/blog/im-a-photographer-getty-me-out-of-here/

Nice article, loved the foul language!

I am not a SEO specialist, but if a gazillion sites embed links back to Getty wouldn't that propel them right to the top of search results? That would be a very tangible benefit for them.
And I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but for photographers having their images plastered all over web - wouldn't that reduce the sellability of the image instead of increasing it? Just one more point on "how Getty screws photographers" list...

pancaketom · « **Reply #462 on:** March 07, 2014, 17:04 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 07, 2014, 16:57

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 07, 2014, 16:43
Photographer's blog post about the Getty deal (warning, foul language ):

http://paulclarke.com/photography/blog/im-a-photographer-getty-me-out-of-here/

Nice article, loved the foul language!
I am not a SEO specialist, but if a gazillion sites embed links back to Getty wouldn't that propel them right to the top of search results? That would be a very tangible benefit for them.
And I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but for photographers having their images plastered all over web - wouldn't that reduce the sellability of the image instead of increasing it? Just one more point on "how Getty screws photographers" list...

If Google feels that a site has too many links boosting it's SEO unfairly they can always hammer it down, which could happen. Or maybe Getty will only show up for the people searching for free images.

tickstock · « **Reply #463 on:** March 07, 2014, 17:53 »

Hobostocker · « **Reply #464 on:** March 07, 2014, 17:58 »

the stock industry is becoming like prostitution in germany .. in some FKK clubs now they have "flat rates" and "all you can F kk" promotions, along with rock bottom cheap women working inside RVs and roulottes for as low as 10-20 euros.

due to the prices falling down i've read many girls moved to greener pastures as they felt germany is no more a place for easy money.

my feeling ? all this getty bashing is totally overboard, we should better be concerned about oversupply and oversaturation instead, serious buyers will still pay decent prices, bloggers and scroungers shouldn't even be expected to be near our core business and if you do i'm sorry for you guys, you've put yourself in a very risky business where you'll fight to survive among iphone snaps, flickers, embedded images, and who knows what's next.

i mean if getty decided your images are worth nothing who am i to say otherwise, and most of that ancient Photodisc cr-ap should be thrown to the dogs anyway, it's 2014 for f ks sake ...

dingles · « **Reply #465 on:** March 07, 2014, 18:08 »

Getty is a pimp no doub

...I guess that makes us the prostotutes

jeffclow · « **Reply #466 on:** March 07, 2014, 18:13 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 07, 2014, 17:58

the stock industry is becoming like prostitution in germany .. in some FKK clubs now they have "flat rates" and "all you can F kk" promotions, along with rock bottom cheap women working inside RVs and roulottes for as low as 10-20 euros.

due to the prices falling down i've read many girls moved to greener pastures as they felt germany is no more a place for easy money.

my feeling ? all this getty bashing is totally overboard, we should better be concerned about oversupply and oversaturation instead, serious buyers will still pay decent prices, bloggers and scroungers shouldn't even be expected to be near our core business and if you do i'm sorry for you guys, you've put yourself in a very risky business where you'll fight to survive among iphone snaps, flickers, embedded images, and who knows what's next.

i mean if getty decided your images are worth nothing who am i to say otherwise, and most of that ancient Photodisc cr-ap should be thrown to the dogs anyway, it's 2014 for f ks sake ...

"If Getty decided your images are worth nothing".

Ahh.....that's the exact thing we're all upset about. Getty does not have the right to say our images are "worthless". Only the copyright owner could make such a statement. If you want to say it about your own work - you sure can do so. But Getty doesn't have the right to do so.

Getty is a broker. They offer representation for 80% of the take of an image's sale. We are suppliers/contributors or perhaps just simply fools to be in bed with them.

But NEVER did they say they would give away our total image library for free. That's why they keep referring to this as "promotional use". Every one of their spokespeople keep using those exact words. Why? Because they know that VERY FEW photographers would agree to this massive online use giveaway.

It sounds like you are a big Getty fan. I get that. You have a different viewpoint than the majority of us here, it appears. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the devaluation of millions of images overnight and the Getty = FREE online campaign.

I'm pulling my stuff and you're obviously staying with them. Its a gamble either way. But at least I won't have to find my stuff for free with Getty's name all over it - and with Getty ads in much larger visibility than my credit line.

Choices. We all have them. I don't fault yours. Why fault others who have a contrarian viewpoint?

gbalex · « **Reply #467 on:** March 07, 2014, 18:43 »

http://tinyurl.com/lyg5cod

Snip

Form 8-K for SHUTTERSTOCK, INC.

5-Mar-2014

Other Events

Item 8.01 Other Events.

Each of the following executive officers of Shutterstock, Inc. (the "Company") have informed the Company that, as of February 28, 2014, he entered into a pre-arranged stock trading plan to sell shares of the Company's Common Stock:

Thilo Semmelbauer (President and Chief Operating Officer), Timothy E. Bixby (Chief Financial Officer) and James Chou (Chief Technology Officer). Their trading plans are designed to comply with Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mr. Semmelbauer further advised the Company that his plan provides for selling up to 60,000 shares (subject to, among other things, the volume limitations imposed by applicable securities regulations), which represents approximately 15% of his current holdings of the Company's Common Stock.

Mr. Bixby further advised the Company that his plan provides for selling up to 60,000 shares (subject to, among other things, the volume limitations imposed by applicable securities regulations), which represents approximately 20% of his current holdings of the Company's Common Stock and options to purchase Common Stock.

Mr. Chou further advised the Company that his plan provides for selling up to 19,750 shares (subject to, among other things, the volume limitations imposed by applicable securities regulations), which represents approximately 14% of his current holdings of the Company's Common Stock and options to purchase Common Stock.

Each of the trading plans provides for sales of specified share amounts at specified market prices, subject to certain limitations. Sales pursuant to the trading plans are expected to begin as early as May 1, 2014 and will end no later than July 31, 2015. The trading plans may terminate sooner in accordance with their terms.

Each of Messrs. Semmelbauer, Bixby and Chou have informed the Company that their sale of shares is being done for asset diversification, tax and estate planning, and charitable giving purposes.

In accordance with Rule 10b5-1, officers and directors of a public company may adopt a plan for selling stock of the public company. The plan may be entered into only when the officer or director is not in possession of material, non-public information about the company. The stock transactions under this plan will be disclosed publicly through Form 144 and Form 4 filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as may be required by law, the Company does not undertake to report on specific Rule 10b5-1 pre-arranged stock trading plans of Company officers, nor to report modifications or terminations of the aforementioned 10b5-1 Plans or the plan of any other individua

Batman · « **Reply #468 on:** March 07, 2014, 20:15 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 07, 2014, 13:35

Please let me explain and summarize:

Thank You!

Good but got lost in the debate from dumb tickpicking. When people let the Getty past the gate they let the invasion into their web page. Next ads or blank pictures, Getty owns your web site.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #469 on:** March 07, 2014, 20:46 »

If you wanted exhibit A on horribly sloppy reporting and a fundamental misunderstanding of what they were reporting on, you'd go for this from The Street:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/video/12520021/shutterstock-shares-up-as-getty-images-focuses-on-digital.html

The reporter clearly says, after noting that Getty owns iStock, that iStock is for free images but they are of lower quality. I'm not sure what the early reference to Shutterstock offering free images is about either - they do have a freebie a week, (or is it a month?) but that's it.

Possibly she made the mistake so many do - hearing "royalty free" and thinking "free"...

tickstock · « **Reply #470 on:** March 07, 2014, 20:54 »

Pixart · « **Reply #471 on:** March 07, 2014, 21:16 »

A troll on one of the blogs I've commented on told me I should get my own website. I said .... yes, I agree... have you heard of symbiostock.com ?

Shoot, if Leo had some templates and whatnot to sell this event could have been a big turning point for him. We could comment like crazy and promote symbiostock for him, but..... not sure I am supposed to mention symbiostock any more?

marthamarks · « **Reply #472 on:** March 07, 2014, 21:25 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 07, 2014, 20:46

Possibly she made the mistake so many do - hearing "royalty free" and thinking "free"...

Exactly. We need to eradicate every reference to "free" when speaking or writing about our images.

stockastic · « **Reply #473 on:** March 07, 2014, 22:33 »

Quote from: marthamarks on March 07, 2014, 21:25

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 07, 2014, 20:46
Possibly she made the mistake so many do - hearing "royalty free" and thinking "free"...

Exactly. We need to eradicate every reference to "free" when speaking or writing about our images.

We can lock that barn door, but the horse is already in the next county.

marthamarks · « **Reply #474 on:** March 07, 2014, 23:00 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 07, 2014, 22:33

Quote from: marthamarks on March 07, 2014, 21:25
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 07, 2014, 20:46
Possibly she made the mistake so many do - hearing "royalty free" and thinking "free"...

Exactly. We need to eradicate every reference to "free" when speaking or writing about our images.

We can lock that barn door, but the horse is already in the next county.

Not on our own websites.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 199458 times)

EmberMike

tickstock

BD

BD

ShadySue

stocked

jeffclow

cobalt

Jo Ann Snover

Shelma1

gbalex

Elenathewise

pancaketom

tickstock

Hobostocker

dingles

jeffclow

gbalex

Batman

Jo Ann Snover

tickstock

Pixart

marthamarks

stockastic

marthamarks

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors